The Good News about Genes and Mental Disorders

[Nous]

Of course I want you to provide your reasons for disagreeing with professor Leo's statements. That's what I asked for in the OP. All I can do is beg. Be sure to cite your sources.

So, no answer. That's what I thought.

 

[Nous]

This is not a thread for your religion.

So you haven't read any of the scholarly literature on the topic of the thread?

I don't think one can discount religious scholars from this subject that easily .

Your ideas about "demons" are unscientific and (therefore) irrelevant to the topic of this thread.

 

[Burl]

Your ideas are as much hearsay as mine are.

 

[Nous]

Your ideas are as much hearsay as mine are.

What the hell are you talking about? If you believe that anything I've said or quoted on this thread is erroneous, then quote it and provide the evidence that contradicts it.

You still haven't read anything in the peer-reviewed literature on the topic. Correct?

 

[Burl]

I speaking of the "Good News", raised by yourself, inferring that schizophrenia is not genetically related and can yet be associated with psychiatric or religious roots.

 

[Nous]

I speaking of the "Good News", raised by yourself, inferring that schizophrenia is not genetically related and can yet be associated with psychiatric or religious roots.

When you are able to substantiate any of your claims, or at least show that they have some vague connection to reality, you will let us know, won't you?

 

[Burl]

the edifying part I can understand, but the stimulating.. I couldn't care less about genes and mental disorder after interacting with him

Casting out his Demon isn't as easy as I thought.

 

[Nous]

Casting out his Demon isn't as easy as I thought.

This topic must make you nervous. You've posted a dozen posts here, but haven't been able to contribute a single fact, haven't been able to make a single statement that you can substantiate to be true. It's quite informative.

 

[Burl]

That's the trouble with the hearsay evidence that we have provided here, it's unsubstanciable except by relying on other witnesses. So any and all unsubstantiated evidence is admissible in this discussion, including ad hominem attacks evidently.

 

[Kueid]

That's the trouble with the hearsay evidence that we have provided here, it's unsubstanciable except by relying on other witnesses. So any and all unsubstantiated evidence is admissible in this discussion, including ad hominem attacks evidently.

b-b-b-but peer review

 

[Burl]

The Rule of the Majority?

i.e.The credibility of expert witnesses is judged by the majority to be beyond reproof.

Therefor reality is what the majority says it is.

 

[Nous]

That's the trouble with the hearsay evidence that we have provided here, it's unsubstanciable except by relying on other witnesses. So any and all unsubstantiated evidence is admissible in this discussion, including ad hominem attacks evidently.

No, none of your "hearsay evidence" (apparently you don't know what that phrase means) or your "ad hominem attacks" are pertinent to the topic of thread.

Why don't you try to read and understand some of the peer-reviewed literature (such as linked to in the OP) on the topic, so that you might could contribute something worthwhile?

 

[Nous]

b-b-b-but peer review

I assume that, like you said about the OP, a peer-reviewed paper would be too long for you to read.

 

[Burl]

you might could contribute something worthwhile

Worthwhile to whom?
"Any port in a storm" eh?

 

[Nous]

Worthwhile to whom?

To intelligent people who can read and understand the peer-reviewed literature.

 

[Burl]

For your sake, I hope they appear and appease you.

 

[Kueid]

I assume that, like you said about the OP, a peer-reviewed paper would be too long for you to read.

keep assuming..